• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What is your opinion?

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
That's interesting. I've never heard that before. I thought the conventional view was they considered 'Issa to be a prophet and that was that.

Can you elaborate a bit?

'The fact that Muslims recognize this important title for Jesus, even though there is some discussion here about what precisely it means, shows some confluence between the Muslim and Christian faiths. Our Christian friends think that this is one of the most important titles for Jesus. They want to know if we recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Muslims can say yes. That alone is an aha moment! '


7. Jesus/Esa (as) is the Messiah (Christ, or Al-Masih). This means he was specially chosen by Allah for a mission and will return near the end times.


Etc.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member

'The fact that Muslims recognize this important title for Jesus, even though there is some discussion here about what precisely it means, shows some confluence between the Muslim and Christian faiths. Our Christian friends think that this is one of the most important titles for Jesus. They want to know if we recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Muslims can say yes. That alone is an aha moment! '


7. Jesus/Esa (as) is the Messiah (Christ, or Al-Masih). This means he was specially chosen by Allah for a mission and will return near the end times.


Etc.
Well that would not be too surprising fit in view of what my son tells me about the genesis of Islam from a Judaeo-Christian/Persian melting pot in the fertile crescent around 500AD. But I've never heard it from any muslim.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Well that would not be too surprising fit in view of what my son tells me about the genesis of Islam from a Judaeo-Christian/Persian melting pot in the fertile crescent around 500AD. But I've never heard it from any muslim.
They don't like using the term, presumably because it has very different connotations to Christians so may be misunderstood. The Quran pretty clearly calls Jesus the Messiah though, so it'd be hard to dismiss.

'O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allāh except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allāh and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allāh and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allāh is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as Disposer of affairs.'

 

exchemist

Veteran Member
They don't like using the term, presumably because it has very different connotations to Christians so may be misunderstood. The Quran pretty clearly calls Jesus the Messiah though, so it'd be hard to dismiss.

'O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allāh except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allāh and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allāh and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allāh is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as Disposer of affairs.'

Ah OK so it's a title rather than indicating anything special theologically?
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Ah OK so it's a title rather than indicating anything special theologically?
Seems like it. There's dispute over what it actually means. It seems rather vague tbh, just something accepted 'Jesus was the Messiah, what else is new?' because that was the dominant belief around the Arab locale in the 7th c.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
This is very well said. I will likely use the phrase ‘yell the loudest and threaten the most’ in the future.



While I understand your idea, if I were in Denmark, I would not be inclined to make such demands and requests. This is because I don’t like the thought of myself telling a people to change their way of life for me. It would not be fair for them.



I feel the same way. Because I understand your perspective and respect Danes living their own way of life and culture, I would never demand a ban on cow slaughter in Denmark.



I agree that that was not a valid reason to make such a change. Additionally, this is an example of them not taking everything else into consideration: they probably did not think about Sikh children, if there are any Sikh children there. The 10th guru of the Sikhs ordered that Sikhs do not consume meat from any animal that was slaughtered in the halal manner.



I am entirely with you on this. In a civilization with religious freedom, even if there is an official church, the laws, culture, and way of life should not be changed just to appease a religious community that yells the loudest and threatens the most. Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. should simply do the best they can without demanding changes. (That’s part of how I live in Korea.) However, certain accommodations such as getting Shabbat and religious holidays off from work would be generous and very kind on the part of employers.
Something you understand and some religious fanatics still have to learn:
053f6ba2131a6e85ad67e3403b521cadda1b97-v5-wm.jpg
 

Alien826

No religious beliefs
I would say that Muslims (and I'm not sure what percentage of them I'm talking about, I'm sure not all) should get a lot less sensitive about this. It's actually a progression in religions. Christianity was all about blasphemy and persecution at one time. It's been much improved by a dose of tolerance, and from what I read here, many Christians are just as dogmatic about their beliefs as were their ancestors.

I say this with respect, because truly, if someone is insulting you or something you hold dear, ignoring them is much more effective than flying into a rage. Rage is what they are trying to provoke, to make you look bad, and you just played into their game. Ignore them and they will move on to something else.

For the rest of us, what should our attitude be to bullies? Those that use violence to get their way are bullies and appeasing bullies never works. Stand up to them, even if the consequences may be uncomfortable. The alternative is worse.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Agree, as I have said earlier, I don't think these morons should burn it. ...
On the other hand, if it is few people who do that, why is the who country punished for it? I think bad thing about this is that it is used for to make the country more totalitarian and reject freedoms that people should have.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
On the other hand, if it is few people who do that, why is the who country punished for it? I think bad thing about this is that it is used for to make the country more totalitarian and reject freedoms that people should have.
Not sure I understand what you are saying? Do you ask why those that burn the Quran aren't punished for it because they are just a few people?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
As many are probably aware there are some political problems going on due to some guy burning the Quran in Denmark and Sweden, which have pissed off a lot of Muslims.

Just a quick sum up.
Many Muslim-majority countries have expressed outrage. Last week protesters set fire to Sweden's embassy in Iraq after learning police in Stockholm had given permission for more book burning.

The Danish government want to try to find ways to make it illegal to do something like that. Today a Turkish man attacked the Swedish consul with a pistol. The guy that burns the book is an idiot that just wants attention, that is basically his whole purpose.

I'm wondering where people stand on this?

Should it be illegal to burn holy books like the Quran or should one be free to do it?

If you think it should be illegal, would also think that it would be a valid claim for Hindus to demand that no one eats cows (General speaking, know there are different rules)?

If you want more info (Haven't watched it, but I think it sums it up):

I support the right to destroy one's own property as long as it is not done as an act to incite violence against innocent people.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I rather think the opposite. I can understand why someone would think banning the burning of books would be putting limits on the freedom of expression, but just as well the act of burning the books is a danger to freedom of expression, even more so in fact. Writing is an expression in itself, and books are a part of history.

Wouldn't that only apply to the original material though?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Accordingly, public order provisions would normally be the way to go, I think, on the "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" principle, rather than tinkering around with any special legal protection for certain books.

But that's not equal, nor similar, to shouting fire in a crowded theatre though.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
But that's not equal, nor similar, to shouting fire in a crowded theatre though.
I think it is. Mounting a publicity stunt intended to annoy, and by implication disparage, a section of the community, is the same sort of thing, viz. irresponsible and likely - probably intended, even - to provoke unrest. It's a wind-up: in internet terms, trolling.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
That's interesting. I've never heard that before. I thought the conventional view was they considered 'Issa to be a prophet and that was that.

Can you elaborate a bit?

Mainstream Sunni Islamic eschatology holds that Jesus will return at the end times and kill ad-Dajjal (the Antichrist), confirming his own status as the true messiah and liberating believers from the fitnah ("trial" or "temptation," among other meanings) of the Dajjal.

Who will kill the Dajjal?​

The Dajjal will die at the hands of the Messiah ‘Isa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), as is indicated by the sahih ahadith. The Dajjal will appear on earth and will gain many followers, spreading his fitnah far and wide. No one will escape his fitnah except a few of the believers. At that point, ‘Isa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him) will descend to the eastern minaret in Damascus, and the believing slaves of Allah will gather around him. He will lead them towards the Dajjal, who at the time of the descent of ‘Isa (peace be upon him) will be heading for Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem).

Something I find deeply disturbing about this supposedly authentic narrative is that it also contains extreme, overt antisemitism:

‘Isa will catch up with him at the gate of Ludd (Lod), a place in Palestine near Bayt al-Maqdis. When the Dajjal sees him, he will start to melt like salt melting in water, but ‘Isa (peace be upon him) will say to him, “I have some business with you, you will not get away from me.” Then he will catch up with him and will kill him with his spear. His followers will flee, pursued by the Muslims, who will kill them, and trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O slave of Allah, there is Jew behind me – come and kill him!” – apart from the gharqad (box thorn), for it is one of the trees of the Jews.


I suppose that last part is also germane to the topic of this thread: How many of those demanding a ban on the book burning in question would also support a ban on the recitation or propagation of the above passage? We're not even talking about a niche or unpopular text; this is classified as an authentic hadith by most hadith scholars in the globally prevalent Islamic sect (Sunni Islam). By what consistent standard should it be allowed but other actions or beliefs that offend some Islamic organizations shouldn't be?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I think it is. Mounting a publicity stunt intended to annoy, and by implication disparage, a section of the community, is the same sort of thing, viz. irresponsible and likely - probably intended, even - to provoke unrest. It's a wind-up: in internet terms, trolling.

But in one case the action will result in people carelessly trying to save their lives and possibly resulting in injury and even death. In the other, the injuries and deaths are caused by people that willfully chose to harm others. The religious crowd is not acting out of desperation trying to survive.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Staff member
Premium Member
Wouldn't that only apply to the original material though?
If any books are allowed to be burned it would be hard to put limits on it. If a book was hated enough by a certain group or movement it could be burned from existence. And then so could any book
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
If any books are allowed to be burned it would be hard to put limits on it. If a book was hated enough by a certain group or movement it could be burned from existence. And then so could any book

Hmm...
I can understand where you are coming from if it is not a book available in digital form and no one is publishing it anymore. But this is not the case with the Quran.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
But in one case the action will result in people carelessly trying to save their lives and possibly resulting in injury and even death. In the other, the injuries and deaths are caused by people that willfully chose to harm others. The religious crowd is not acting out of desperation trying to survive.
The original saying was, of course, a metaphor for the limits to free speech. It was not literally about fires in theatres.

In both cases the intent of the perpetrator is to provoke a riot.
 
Top